User talk:Derek Ross/2006

2005 talk archive

Thanks

Thanks for the catch on Kilt. CantStandYa 23:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thank you for fixing up the article. -- Derek

User cat/lists

Hi. I reverted this edit. We don't really want to have a multiplicity of categories and lists that do exactly the same thing, and these changes were discussed at length I believe (though I didn't participate in that discussion). If you have an issue with the way that was done, you should perhaps raise it with the users that made those changes. Mind matrix 17:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks

No problem. The plot part does need a little editing though, you may have noticed the over-use of words such as "but"; but it's good to have finally put up an article on that thing. :) - Calgacus 14:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to present Early Medieval king names

Derek, as you're an old hand at this lark, and more familiar with what pass for standards, can you take a look at the discussion on this subject at the bottom of my talk page and throw in your tuppenceworth (probably the equivalent of a couple of dollars by now, thanks to inflation). Thanks in advance ! Angus McLellan 23:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much of use I can add to that very interesting discussion apart from describing why things are the way they are in Wikipedia, so I'll mull things over before writing anything. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Napier - Requested move

Hi. This Requested move has been live for a few days now, with unanimous support. Would it be reasonable for us to wrap it up now, or is more time required?

Talk:John_Napier

--Mais oui! 16:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty solid to me and five days have passed. Okay, done. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolity

While adding a pic to Largs I noted that it didn't mention the lamented demise of Nardini's, and couldn't resist putting in the caption from a friend's cartoon[1] ...dave souza, talk 11:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<Grin>. I like it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query

I've noted a User who has created three accounts. Seems to be non-malicious, ie not used for sockpuppetry, but I just wanted to ask you if this is accepted practice here at Wikipedia. Seems to me that the decent thing to do would be to put a notice up at each account giving the other User names under which that person edits. Above the board and all that.

It does of course beg the question: how many other accounts may this person have under less obvious names?

Funnily enough I had been thinking of opening another account myself, to which I would link from my current one, purely for the purpose of tracking a limited number of key articles: my Watchlist is now far, far too big and I just cannot seem to cut the thing down. But I wanted to consult an experienced hand before I did it, in case I am missing an easier solution, or in case this is against the rules. Having just read the intro to that Sock puppetry article, I can see that that is a seriously bad idea.--Mais oui! 08:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In principle extra accounts are neither good nor bad but in practice they have become so associated with nefarious dealings that I would advise strongly against them. I am glad that you have read the Sock Puppet article and come to that conclusion yourself. As for the ever-growing watchlist, you just have to be ruthless and remind yourself that other sensible Wikipedians are probably watching the articles too. Even after five years my watchlist is still down in the low two hundreds because I try to balance every addition with a subtraction. It doesn't completely stop growth but it does keep it under control.

One thing that we might do with the other Scottish Wikipedians is to divide up our Scottish watched articles so that no more than three of us watches a given article. I am sure that some articles are over-watched and doing this might cut down on all our watchlists. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Kilt article

Soon after beginning the revision of the kilt article in accordance with my proposal on the Talk page of that article of several days earlier, User CantStandYa reverted all my changes, including the link to the new Kilt accessories article. He has done this more than once, repeatedly reverting changes both by myself and one other where he has restored a copyvio image of his.

His username is a violation of Wikipedia policy on offensive usernames. An earlier edit of his where he put my name in parentheses following his username in the edit summary clearly indicates the username is a type of epithet directed personally at me.

He does not own the Kilt article and I would like to continue the revision without any further trouble. The new, expanded, and revised articles would likely occupy around 50 KB collectively and could not be accommodated in a single article without it becoming overly large.

JFPerry 22:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how annoying that behaviour is, JF, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it vandalism. It's more like bad manners. What I suggest is that you first put a polite note on his talk page asking why he objects to revision of the kilt article so strongly, then if you don't get a reasonable answer take it to the article's talk page or perhaps the Wikipedia_talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board to find out what other people think. I think that what you're doing is a good thing and if you can get enough other people to agree, we can get this thrashed out. As you know, this wouldn't be the first time we've had trouble over the Kilt article. Hopefully a bit more discussion can sort out something agreeable to all without all the unproductive reversion we had last time. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, okay, bad manners it is then. Meanwhile, the kilt article is still in serious need of major revision and will just have to remain so as I will no longer be dealing with it. A person reading that article would, based on the article itself, not be able to answer simple questions about the kilt, such as the difference between pleating to the stripe and pleating to the sett, and many, many others. The article talks about almost everything but what a kilt is.

Recent edits have dealt with minutiae, and usually wrong-headed at that (change from man's garment to men's garment). The history section still lacks info on theVestiarium, or Wilson's 1819 Patternbook, or Queen Victoria and the Braemar games, the introduction of knife pleating by the Gordon Highlanders in the 1850s, etc.

There are many much more productive uses of my time on Wikipedia. Interesting, though, about previous problems with that article. I didn't know about them, but it seems to be a Wikipedia hazard with any articles dealing with clothing issues.

JFPerry 16:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formats, date

From memory, you've expressed some discontent with the perennial pain in the pinny of dates to the backwards US manner changed being. Having noticed a discussion on this, I checked Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and found the guidance buried under an inappropriate title, so proposed a change on the talk page. Since then the guidance has been significantly weakened: dunno if you've time for this, but perhaps you could draw the attention of like minded folks to getting this clarified. ...dave souza, talk 09:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is modern Glaswegian a Scots dialect or an English dialect?

What do you think of this edit?

[2]

Perhaps it is both? --Mais oui! 16:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, that's really difficult to judge. The speech of a city like Glasgow with its big "immigrant" population of people from English-speaking areas, Gaelic-speaking areas, Scots-speaking areas, and overseas has many roots and assigning it definitively to "Scots" or "English" is almost impossible. I don't think that Calgacus is exactly wrong in making that edit but I do think that he's being a bit overconfident. The situation isn't really that simple. Depending on which sub-community of Glaswegians you pick, a case could be made for assigning it to Scots or to English. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think when it comes down to it, even if many ardently believe it was and is a separate language, all "Scots" is classifiable as "English". In the scholarly world, it is totally uncontroversial to classify the modern Glaswegian dialect as "English", but is controversial to classify it as "Scots", since the definition of the latter vis-à-vis English has never been agreed either by scholarly consensus or a prescribing government institution. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I can agree with that-- Derek Ross | Talk 20:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kilt article clean-up

Within the next few days, I will be posting (again!) a clean-up proposal for the kilt article. This posting will be on the talk page of the article as well as on the Wikipedia_talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board. If there is sufficient expressed support, I will be able to complete the process, start to finish, very rapidly. JFPerry 17:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you are prepared to try again. Thank you. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H.M.S.Pinafore

Just a quick note apologising about the numbering issue on the H.M.S. Pinafore talk pages - I should have been clearer about what I meant, and pointed up the cut recitative in the list as an example of how to add 'em. Adam Cuerden 19:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Adam. Thanks for fixing the list up. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astrotrain

I seek your advice regarding the behaviour of User:Astrotrain. --Mais oui! 23:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free. What's worrying you ? I can see that you and he disagree about a lot of things (unsurprisingly given the difference in UK-related POV between you) but neither of you seems to be treating the other badly from what I can see by checking both of your user contribution links. Use the email this user link if you want to talk it over privately . -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you make of his latest Edit war over at Scotland? Total failure to explain just why he is piping that link. If we had an explanation perhaps we could attempt to reason with him, although "reason" seems to be a singular absence in his actions.--Mais oui! 14:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you guys are both determined Scots with differing views of what is in Scotland's best interests, so I'm not sure what to say. To tell you the truth I don't think that there's much to choose between your version and his. Although it would be friendlier if he was prepared to discuss the pros and cons of the change with you, it's such a small change (even semantically) that I doubt that such a discussion would really be worth the time and effort involved. You're doing good work on Scottish matters elsewhere, so I'd be inclined to let this small one go. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. I know that you are correct. It is just better to sometimes hear it from a third party. At least I, for one, can be "the big man". --Mais oui! 15:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that a previous attempt to engage the said user in polite and contructive discussion was met with:

firstly personal abuse [3]
ignoring this, I tried again and he simply deleted the comments with the summary "uninterested"[4]

In any case, I have left suitable edit summaries to explain my position and responded politely in the talk page. Astrotrain 10:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Astrotrain. I know that Mais oui can be "robust" in his comments sometimes. But for me it's balanced by the good work that he has undoubtedly done. But I don't want to take sides in this. I respect you both as editors. You both work hard on the 'pedia and I think it's unfortunate that you clash so often. You're both basically decent guys from what I can see. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign to "Shire-ify" Scotland

Please see:

--Mais oui! 21:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shire-ification campaigners targetting Template:Scotland counties too. --Mais oui! 09:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only after your unilateral, undiscussed campaign to de-shire-ify it by moving articles to their current locations in the first place, then deliberately editing the original namespaces so they couldn't be moved back. Stringops 17:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, Stringops, but most of those who actually live in the counties concerned would have done the same as Mais oui. There's nothing wrong with using "-shire" where it is appropriate -- eg Invernesshire or Aberdeenshire -- but changing Argyll to Argyllshire over-regularises things. It's as bad as changing Cornwall to Cornwallshire. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but I feel it is questionable whether wikipedia should name articles on areas according to those who live in them or the most widely-understood and least ambiguous term in general English usage. Personally, I feel it should be latter, and no-one has yet provided any evidence that I have seen on the respective popularity of the terms in question.

More generally, I think any unilateral page-moving is wrong, and Mais oui knew very well that quite a few contributors would have opposed his actions had he gone through the correct procedure (and deliberate tampering with the redirect page to prevent moving back, I hope you'd agree, is very bad form) . Even if consensus proves to be in favour of keeping these articles where they are, at least nominating them for moving will give their titles a legitimacy which was previously lacking. Stringops 18:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet/Meatpuppet investigation - User:Owain

An investigation is now underway, at my request:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#Owain_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29.2C_MonMan_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29.

Other relevant material at:

Wikipedia:Requests for investigation (both at Watchlist (Owain), and at Under investigation (it is me that was first "under investigation", at the request of User:Owain)
User_talk:JzG#User:Owain_using_a_sockpuppet.3F
User_talk:Petros471#User:Owain_using_a_sockpuppet.3F

Please keep an eye on the progress of this: any additional information you can supply would be highly valued, but I really just want some calm heads to watch this situation. I intend to also post this notice at the Talk pages of some other Admins, eg Morwen (talk · contribs). If this is not sockpuppetry, then at the very least it is a co-ordinated meatpuppetry campaign. Thanks. --Mais oui! 10:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Toon time

A heads up that Bud Neill who was a source of inspiration to generations of Scottish cartoonists (including my own modest efforts) featured in Did you know... on the main page today ;-p ...dave souza, talk 11:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

Cheers, Andrew. I'll try to be a little less "robust", in my comments. But sometimes it can be hard, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean, I have to deal with people like that all of the time - the one's who pick up on tiny details and miss the fact that the big picture is wrong. Okay, I'm going to stop watching your talk page, so if you have anything else, put it on my talk page, otherwise, happy editing! Andrewjur e n(talk) 04:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scots FA's?

Does the Scots Wikipedia (no article yet I notice! ... see Category:Wikipedias by language) have any Featured articles facility, nominees or FA's yet? There is no interwiki from the en: Featured articles article, nor could I find one in a quick look (but I wasn't sure what it might be called). --Mais oui! 08:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a featured article system in place yet. And I'd be hard pressed to name a single article of FA quality anyway. The Scots wikipedia is still at a pretty early stage and really only has a few reasonably regular contributors so far. Wikipedia contributors tend to fall into three categories: those who mostly add content; those who mostly copyedit and those who mostly participate in the community. The first of these is also the rarest and most useful. Unfortunately we don't really have such a person editing the Scots Wikipedia at the moment, so progress is slow. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clans of Scotland Wikiproject.

Hello, there. I'm going around to all the listed participants of the Clans of Scotland WikiProject, asking for a short update on whate they're up to as far as the project goes. I want to see if this project is still viable, and I'm wondering if anyone else is still actively participating. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clans of Scotland#Status.3F. Canaen 19:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doric dialect move cleanup

I'll do it Ross, thanks for the hints. Miskin 02:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thank you. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underwear pervert on Kilt article

I am getting sick and tired of seeing that underwear photo (1stBatBW.jpg) being shoved in our face again, and again, and again. When is it going to be removed - permananely! The person (and all his sockpuppets) seems to have no other function on Wikipedia except this copyvio photo. It has been tagged and deemed a copyvio once before. Will some admin delete it from Wikpedia so we don't have to keep desling with it over and over and over again?

I have contributed hundreds of photos to the commons, not to mentioin many lengthy, quality articles on Highland games related material, women's cycle racing, and others. JFPerry 14:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it, JF. However it's been deleted 7 times already and reloaded every time, so it may well be reloaded again. I'll delete it again if necessary. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zahira College Colombo

Hi, The text I have added is from http://www.geocities.com/Zahira_College_Colombo/ same thing is copied by someone into angelfire webpage, I can put GFDL copyright notice, but GFDL allows only a verbatim copy of the page, please correct me if I am wrong, my article is not a verbatim copy of the webpage. if just adding GFDL would solve the problem I can do it. And copyvio notice should point to the above site. Please advice «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 12:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, Mystic. The GFDL does allow modified copies of the original. That's why Wikipedia uses it for its own articles which are constantly modified. If you add the GFDL notice to the original web page, that should solve the problem. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, could you kindly provide me the GFDL text so I could include it in the webpage.. thanks «₪Mÿš†íc₪» ^(T) 19:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The basic text is...

Copyright (c) YEAR YOUR NAME.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document

under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2

or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;

with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover

Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU

Free Documentation License".

...but read the description of the GFDL on the Free Software Foundation's website for full instructions on what to do with it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot again..I will include it in the website.. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» ^(T) 11:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have included it in the website.. please chek it out «₪Mÿš†íc₪» ^(T) 11:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi. Thanks for the note, and I'm glad it's (hopefully) sorted out. Sorry I didn't add a proper explanation originally - I ought to have read the previous discussions and seen that it was something that a lot of people had discussed and cared about. In fact it was a careless 4 in the morning edit that I almost marked as minor - it just looked like an omission that could be corrected. Anyway best wishes.--Lo2u 16:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Cranston

<blush> Thanks very much for your flattering words about the Catherine Cranston article. Unlike some others I've done which were largely paraphrasing one good source, this was an interesting jigsaw puzzle of sources contributing different bits of the picture, and some things came up that were quite unexpected. It's both amusing and slightly irritating that the Willow Tearooms business that's now running replica tearooms has taken Margaret MacDonald's menu design as the basis for their logo to the extent that they're selling "Charles Rennie Mackintosh gifts" using that logo without credit to Mrs. M! All good fun, ...dave souza, talk 18:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Wikipedia Meetup Reminder

The first Wikipedia Meetup in Calgary is this Monday, May 15, starting at 5pm(ish) at the Good Earth Café in Connaught (1502 - 11 Street SW; Just down from 17 Avenue on 11 Street). —GrantNeufeld 20:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelic Wikipedia

Hi Derek, could you tell me how i might go about gaining Bureaucrat status for the Gaelic wikipedia? Once im free of university work i intend to do a lot of work on it over the summer and some extra powers might be of use :). Also, ive just overhauled the front page of Duille Mòr - how do you like it? siarach 20:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, could be tricky. Bureacrat status is supposed to be agreed by the community nowadays but since the regular community basically consists of you and me (although I just oversee since my Gaelic ain't great), a full vote seems to be overkill, particularly since we are both fully in favour of the proposal. I think our best bet is to take it to Angela or Anthere and see what they say. To tell you the truth the only extra power that bureaucrat gives you is the ability to give other users admin powers but I see no reason why you shouldn't have that. After all I might get run over by a bus or something. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, nice make over on the Duille Mòr. I like it a lot. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

UK:"state" or "country" nonsense again. Please give us your pearls of wisdom:

[5]

Youhave a long memory, and it seems that some newcomers are not aware of the true extent of the history of this debate. --Mais oui! 17:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholics and Proddies

Hi Derek, I actually read the content of that site and yes, I have to admit you were right. Burns got deleted in fact, as you can see now, from the list of Catholics. Mind you, I have Scottish Protestant relatives from Ayr, so no other aim at it rather than pure knowledge.

Well, I still feel it should be right for us to add the Catholic kings and queens of Scotland on the "Scottish Roman Catholics" page: I mean, how would you call Mary Stuart then? A Presbyterian? An atheist? Let's add the House of Stuart almost on the whole, come on...Gianmaria Framarin 13:33 3 June 2006

Mary Stuart is dead easy. Now if you want a hard one, try John Knox. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Scotland-Already Made!

Thanks for your message. I've already made the necessary amendments! The notes on the talk page were added, as always, for those who wish to follow the tracks of my reasoning. Best wishes. Rcpaterson 05:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green ink

Someone I know who worked for the great British press (ahem) told me that letters to the editors written in green ink went into the bucket unread. THE EQUIVALENT OF MESSAGES ALL IN CAPS I SUPPOSE. But not to be confused with violet ink, the sign of a creative soul trapped in a humdrum world. Or crayon, which I write with as it tastes better than pens or pencils. On the subject of journalists:

You cannot hope to bribe or twist
- Thank God ! - the British journalist,
but seeing what the man will do
unbribed, there's no occasion to.

Hope you're well ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaah. The light blinks on... Yes, I'm fine thanks, Angus. Enjoying the warm weather and looking forward to my holidays. I hope that you're in a position to do the same. Cheers, Derek Ross | Talk

Newton meets baboons

I just wanted to make a comment about your attack on my lack of 'civility' on the Newton talk page. The user I responded to was clearly a prankster. I think the serious response from other users just encouraged him. Wikipedia is obviously vulnerable to pranks and hoaxes, and I think this kind of naivety on the part of the majority of responsible users is undesirable.--Jack Upland 07:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. -- Derek Ross | Talk

Donald Hoskins

Could you briefly undelete the page and move it's contents to User:Teke/Sandbox/Donald BJAODN? I clicked "edit" the moment that you deleted it, so I missed the copy. Thanks! Te ke 00:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, It's baaaack. Te ke 00:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother ? It's boring. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not for posting to BJAODN, those are actually funny. I have myself a little collection of these articles that someone's spent waayyyy too much time on for the unfunniness. Just a bit of a wikihobby. Good work with the quick deletion, happy editing! Te ke 00:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...

Funny

I just saw on my watchlist the phrase "Heriot-Watt was not founded during the mediaeval period". Thank you for making my day a day of laughter. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On which topic, does Talk:State religion#Ha-Ha-Ha! count as Scots language? ....dave souza, talk 22:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's terrible! I nearly fell off the chair laughing! -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The paper was loft insulation in the house I was brought up in, and is here somewhere if you want to cite it ;) ..dave souza, talk 22:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh. Where even the loft insulation is intellectually significant... I hope you realise that you're just confirming people's stereotypes, Dave, <grin>! -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Union of the Crowns

Could you please have a look at the Union of the Crowns. The work I have done on this is being murdered by an eccentric who goes by the name of User:Lord Loxley. I have alerted others in the Scottish community to the problem.Rcpaterson 20:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and your thoughtful comments. I've added a note of my own to the talk page. I don't know if you've come across this eccentric before, but if not a word of warning: do not look for any meaningful exchange-you will drown in a torrent of verbal diarrhoea! He left a note on my talk page yesterday morning accusing me of 'Anti-Catholicism' without context or explanation.Rcpaterson 00:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Yes I have come across him before but thanks for the warning anyway. I have been editing Wikipedia since its first year and can say that throughout its short history, eccentrics have often picked on it as a venue to present their unusual ideas. It's the basic reason why we introduced our No Original Research policy. Unfortunately Physics and History articles were -- and are -- particularly prone to attracting such people. We have in the past lost some excellent academic historians as a result of burnout fighting off eccentrics, some of whom can be extremely unpleasant when crossed. I am sorry to hear that LL has left such a message on your talk page and can only be glad that at least he remains relatively polite. Please don't be put off by such comments. Just remember that the great majority of those involved in editing Scottish topics are extremely pleased by your contributions and will support your efforts to the hilt. We want you to stay. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, Paterson...perhaps you've got this idea that only your favoured perception of history is right or even important enough to discuss. The ability to write a book and have it published in the annals of history, doesn't make you invincible with all that you attempted to cover in the subject-matter. Other people are going to come at things from other perspectives. It's life. Lord Loxley 07:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page for a response to this same comment. ..dave souza, talk 08:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert and Sullivan project

Would you like to consider joining the Wikipedia Gilbert and Sullivan project? If so, feel free to traverse the link and add your name to the list of participants. Marc Shepherd 21:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Marc. I must admit that though I love G & S dearly, I am by no means as knowledgeable as yourself and SSilvers, so I don't know how helpful I can be. However I am very glad to see such a project started and will certainly contribute as far as I am able to. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message re: Copyrights in the G&S bio articles. David Stone has given me express permission to use the materials from his site in creating any and all Wikipedia articles. In fact, he has suggested several more people that he thinks ought to be given Wiki articles. He was very pleased with our use of the info. In addition, I add to the articles research from other websites and the Ayer book. Where available, I also add information from autobiographies, etc.

Actually, if you check out the other singers in the G&S performers category, you'll see that I wrote or substantially edited nearly every singer listed -- 2 - 3 dozen by now. About a dozen more to go, and then I'll be done with all the G&S singers that I know of that I think are probably "notable" enough to add, though other folks may wish to add more someday. Ssilvers 01:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a whole pile of work. You're a hero. Well done! -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Derek. Do you know anything about the Scots/English treaty of 1502? I need a reference for the article on Sir Richard Cholmondeley. Can you take a look at that article? -- Ssilvers 03:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sam. Hmmm, I understudied that part in the mid-70s but I hadn't realised he was an actual historical personage. Well, well! Anyway I think that you are referring to the Treaty of Perpetual Peace (1502) which is mentioned in the James IV of Scotland article and more fully described in the Union of the Crowns article. This latter article also explains why the Scots were honour bound to invade England in 1513 even though they didn't really want to. There is a nice web reference at the Scottish National Archives although it is probably temporary since it supports a current exhibition of the treaty at Stirling Castle. Finally the treaty is briefly described on page 103 of the book, A Short History of Scotland, Revised Edition, by R. L. Mackie, published by Oliver and Boyd of Edinburgh in 1962. Too old for an ISBN number unfortunately. There are better books to reference, no doubt, but that is the only one that I have to hand. I hope that it will do for a start. Perhaps one of my other Scottish colleagues can suggest a more up-to-date one for later. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding, thanks! Stop by WP:G&S and do an article when you have time. If you like Scots history, try Gilbert's "A Sensation Novel". Or something else there that interests you. Baritone, huh? Me too (patter mostly, but Lord Mountararat this summer at the International Gilbert and Sullivan Festival) -- Ssilvers 12:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You got me into this!

Well, in a sort of sense. Things have become a little interesting, as you'll see if you have a look at Talk:British Isles#Disruptive behaviour, and right now I'm reading Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, Any comments you have would be welcome. By the way, I've acquired a hard drive based Freeview recorder and have been saving up the current series of Still Game, though things are a bit hectic at home and I'm a bit behind with watching them. If you like I could burn them onto a DVD+R sometime and post it to you: email me your address if you're interested. ..dave souza, talk 08:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. My main comment is that I try to stay away from that sort of dispute. It makes for a much happier life. After a quick read through, I think I agree with Bazza's comment that a couple of sentences should be enough to cover the facts about the name controversy but given that the article is called "British Isles" rather than "Islands of the North Atlantic" or whatever, it's going to have to cover the topic normally meant by the title and if people can't even agree on what that topic is, there's a BIG problem. But then you already knew that... All that I think you can do is involve a wider Wikipedia audience in it which you are already doing.

Re Still Game, I'll email you. Thanks. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Derek. A bit of sitting back and seeing how it unfolds, now. A bit like old times, except things get a bit heavier when there's real hassle and a couple of million quids worth of building work, checking through the Standard Form of Building Contract to make sure it's nailed. Funny how often dud contractors think Practical Completion means nearly complete! (bit of legal jargon: as the textbooks say, it's complete for all practical purposes, but surprising how often you're pressured to accept something with paintwork incomplete and toilets not working) Ahh, reminiscences. Anyway, in this case I'm hopeful. ...dave souza, talk 15:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're a glutton for punishment, man. First evolution and now this. Are you getting in training for the Danzig/Gdansk fight by any chance? You must really miss those old contract tussles, <grin>. By coincidence my father, Bill Ross, was a quantity surveyor who spent many a year fighting those same battles from the contractor side. However he mostly worked in the Aberdeen area and latterly in the Middle East so it's unlikely that the two of you would have "faced off" across a conference table. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have to admit that was getting a bit worrying, so I dropped a hint to a couple of ladies whose acquaintance I'd made on intelligent design: KillerChihuahua was quick to get heavy with WP:V policy, followed up by SlimVirgin. Collapse of dispute, just as we learnt that the stushie had been noted by the Irish Times - see Wikipedia:Press coverage#July. Anyway, I'll try to take a break from it now. Looked out my window this sunny morning and saw a block of flats going up the Clyde - typical cruise liner. So took some pics of it at Clydeport Ocean Terminal, Greenock. Will try to work one up as an upload. Bit less controversial! ..dave souza, talk 00:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snap from our front door yesterday morning of floating block of flats: see commons:Category:Princess Cruises ships for three other snaps, showing the tub in port. May I also hasten to add that as well as the dud contractors there were many wise enough to do a good job without trying to hassle for more than their due, in which cases we'd go out of our way to see that they got their due and were on the next tender list. ..dave souza, talk 18:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice view you've got there. You must be really close to the Clyde. I see what you mean about floating blocks of flats though. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say a remarkable amount of peace seems to have broken out in the British Isles, and I've rehacked an outline history that's not ruffling too many feathers: wasn't sure if it would survive, but at least it educated me a bit. Also noticed in Saturday's local paper times for a visiting tub, so had a look through the day, and in the evening joined those curious enough to go along to the esplanade and wait for her leaving. More pics at commons:Category:Jewel of the Seas. ...dave souza, talk 22:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edzell and Brechin

How pronounce Edzell and Brechin. Edzell or Edzl. Brehin or Brihin. Brekin or Brikin. \--87.126.110.174 09:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Edzell" has the emphasis on the "Ed", so "Edzl" is closest. Brechin has the emphasis on the "Bre" and pronounces it "Brie" as in the French cheese. If you can pronounce the Scottish "ch" (as in "loch", not as in "rich") then you should say "Brie-chin". If you can't then "Brie-kin" would be the next best pronunciation to use. Edzell is a very pretty village with lots of good walks and a nice little ruined castle. Brechin is a bit larger and not so pretty but does have quite a few items of historical interest well worth visiting. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. The pronounce should for Bulgarian Wikipedia. My user name from Bulgarian Wikipedia is Прон. (--87.126.110.174 09:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thank you for checking with me. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Derek! I'm found article in Bulgarian Wikipedia from Arbroath. Please, answer me 2 questions. How say small river in Arbroath? There is Arbroath twin towns? (Прон).

Very small. Normally it is about 2-3 metres wide and maybe 0.5 metre deep. I would call it a large stream rather than a small river. Its name is the Brothock Burn where "burn" is the Scottish word for stream. I'm afraid that I don't know of any Arbroath twin towns though. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (Прон)

Hi, again! What is scotish words "Aberbrothock" and "Brothock". (Прон)

"Brothock" is an English spelling of the Scottish Gaelic word "Brothaig" which means the same as the English noun "ditch" or the English adjective, "muddy". "Aber-" is a prefix meaning "The rivermouth of -". So "Aberbrothock" means "the rivermouth of the ditch" or "the mouth of the muddy burn" in English. The Brothock burn is like a big muddy ditch for part of its length so the name is quite appropriate. "Arbroath" is a modern popular contraction of "Aberbrothock" and has now become the official name of the town. As a matter of interest if the name "Aberbrothock" was translated into an English equivalent, that equivalent might be "Ditchmouth". -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Derek! You see Bulgarian article for Arbroath?(Прон)

I have taken a look at it but unfortunately I can't read Cyrillic or Bulgarian. The layout is good though and I liked the pictures at the bottom. I am sure that you have done a good job on the content as well and I am very impressed that you are adding the Angus towns to bg.wikipedia.org. Cheers :-) Derek Ross | Talk 18:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have plan for article in Bulgarian Wikipedia for all town in Angus. I have in Bulgarian Wikipedia 18 articles for Scotland town from my anonymous period. (Прон)

Hi! How pronounce Arbroath and Carnoustie on alphabet IPA. (Прон) 16.08.2006

I'm not sure, Прон. Maybe /əːɹˈbɹoθ/ for Arbroath and /kəɹˈnusti/ for Carnoustie. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My variant for Arbrouth is /aɹˈbɹouθ/ ("OU" like "Road") or /aɹˈbɹoθ/. Alphabet "U" in /kəɹˈnusti/ it is short or long english "ОО". My last article (7) for Angus burgh - Carnoustie. (Прон) 16.08.2006

Your variant gives the pronunciation when spoken with a Southern English accent. My variant gives the pronunciation when spoken with a Scottish accent. That is the problem with IPA: it is too specific sometimes. As for Carnoustie, the OO is definitely short -- stressed but short. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i understand. Please, see in Bulgarian Wiki IPA pronounce for Forfar. 03.09.2006 (Прон, en: Pron)

Прон, the stress should be on the first syllable. I would have rendered this pronunciation as /'fɔrfər/ as a Scottish accent and as /'fɔːfəː/ in a southern English one. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pages listed on Categories for deletion

Discussion on CFD - proposal to merge all subcats of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies up into the main cat. Relevant categories which would be deleted are:

I think that this is a rather important discussion for editors interested in Scotland-related articles, especially Scottish politics and Scottish biographical articles (particularly local history). Please have a read and ponder, and contribute to the debate if you like. Thanks. --Mais oui! 17:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be relevant in this context to consider the discussions in the parent category for the UK parliament: Category talk:British MPs. I find it regrettable that Mais oui! has engaged in a restructuring of that category without entering into the discussions there. --BrownHairedGirl 17:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_23#Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament_from_Scottish_constituencies is just about to close. I would really appreciate your contribution, because thisdebate needs some serious input. --Mais oui! 09:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mais Oui, if it were up to me I would abolish the whole Category system. I think that it is wrong in principle because of its tree structure. I rarely get involved in discussions about exactly how to misapply it. Sorry. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy Nuff. You say "Mais Oui, if it were up to me I would abolish the whole Category system", but what would you replace it with? What is wrong with trees? --Mais oui! 00:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<grin>Must admit that I wouldn't replace it.</grin> I don't see any real benefit. A good search engine with savable queries is more generally useful in my opinion. For evidence of this think of Yahoo!. Yahoo! started out by categorising but it's now dumped the categories and uses plain search because it was losing out to Google which didn't bother with categories. Similarly think about Roget's thesaurus. It uses a lovely tree-structured category system to organise its contents. However I bet you turn to the alphabetical index when you want to find a word. That's the trouble with tree-structured category systems: unless you think along exactly the same lines as the person making the structure, it can be very difficult to find the item you're looking for (or in Wikipedia's case to agree where to place the item). Another trouble with the current system is its manual tagging. It's very labour-intensive and there are arguments over what belongs in which category/subcategory, etc. <grin>But you're well aware of that.</grin> -- Cheers Derek Ross | Talk 05:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the vandalism on my talk page. How'd you stumble across it anyhow? Cuttycuttiercuttiest 04:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble. Sorry it was there so long before anyone noticed. The Recent Changes Patrol normally fixes that sort of thing for the rest of us pretty quickly but they must have missed that one. The reason that I caught it was pure chance. You'd edited the Narcolepsy article which is on my watchlist and I was intrigued by your user name so I thought I'd take a look at your User page/talk page to see if there was an explanation. When I saw the lame insult, I dealt with it. That's all. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Scotland

The Scotland article has just been put up for Wikipedia:Peer review. This is a crucial step in getting this article up to WP:FA status, or at least closer to it, which can only have positive effects on all of Wikipedia's Scotland-related coverage. The best way to get the most out of peer review is to monitor for any comments made and try to respond to them promptly. I hope that you may have some possibility to assist in this task? Thanks. --Mais oui! 16:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auld Alliance

Thanks, Derek; I'm glad you appreciate what I have done! It's an enormously complex and detailed subject; so I'm having to rein in quite a lot to try to keep it manageable. I should finish in one or two more sessions-I hope. Rcpaterson 22:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation is your due! Even in its current "reined-in", unfinished state the article is now very informative. I have learned from it; something that I never did from the old article. Thanks again. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland

I am beginning to think that the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board is not the best vehicle for pushing up the quality of the Scotland article (we ought to try to get it to WP:FA, in order to get into Wikipedia:Version 0.5, or, failing that, Wikipedia:Version 1.0), and the other key Scottish articles. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that we really ought to start up the long-mooted WikiProject Scotland.

Most of the stuff at the notice board (at least on the bottom half) is actually WikiProject material anyway, and the Talk page is really being used as a WikiProject talk already! The notice board should be just that: for bunging up brief notices and signposts. I am thinking of launching a Wikiproject and correspondingly radically clearing out, and chopping down, the noticeboard (a re-launch if you like). The Scotland Portal concept is fine (but currently mediocre/undynamic content), but in stasis: it needs a good kick up the jacksie.

For comparison, have a look at:

And, if you are at a loose end, have a look at:

Thoughts? Please express them here. --Mais oui! 18:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm...

Could you cast your learnèd eye over Anglic languages. Correct me if I'm wrong (it has happened on occasion), but it may, perhaps, be just a tad POV. I note, with dismay, that the article is totally unreferenced. Mmmm... --Mais oui! 11:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC) --Mais oui! 23:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<Groan>, I suppose that means that you want me to actually do something... Okay, okay. You do realise that I would join the Association of Apathetic Wikipedians, if I could be bothered, don't you ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such decadence. Yes, I too have had the odd attraction to the sweet lethargy of apathy recently. But that bloody Calvinist work ethic keeps kicking in. Flippin nurture... or nature... one of the two. --Mais oui! 00:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<heh, heh> the Calvinist cross, we have to bear... you're right -- it's a hard life. Anyway, I've had a look at the article and while I wouldn't have written it with that slant, I can't find anything factually too objectionable in it. A reference or two wouldn't go amiss though. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday

<grin> Rich Farmbrough 10:11 14 August 2006 (GMT).

Cheers! Derek Ross | Talk 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikinorthernireland

This edit by an IP address looks very much like the work of User:Wikinorthernireland. Thanks. --Mais oui! 12:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. That should help reduce the number of people moving to Scotland, thus keeping property prices down so that when I move back I can afford a house ! Seriously though, I wonder why he's so fixed on adding negative information about Scotland, even when the study it's from is obviously flawed. (Glasgow more dangerous than Chicago ? I don't think so.) I would guess that the real reason that Scotland scores high on that study is that the population is so urbanised compared with other countries but it's difficult to be sure without spending a lot of time re-analysing the data. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate tone

Once again Rcpaterson has left a note on my talk page about leaving the project in disgust: this time because one or two editors have been putting Template:Inappropriate tone at the top of his work on Scotland in the Late Middle Ages, John MacDonald II, Lord of the Isles and Union of the Crowns. The template frankly seems to be an unspecific demand that articles should be boring, with the implication that interesting writers should go away. It refers to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, but the only hint that gives about "tone" is in a reference to News style which doesn't seem to demand such a thing. I feel that the template should ideally be deleted, or at the least modified so that it appears on the talk page rather than the article page and requires the editor adding it to say what the specific complaint is, and preferably try editing to improve the article rather than just adding a useless template to categorise it as Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing. Which itself seems to be an exercise in listing work needed rather than getting on with it. Your comments and assistance would be appreciated. ...dave souza, talk 10:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got the ball rolling at Template talk:Inappropriate tone, and experts are revolting, leading to this development. On a lighter note, got any doocots in your area? I'm now plotting to get into Glasgow to see if any of the corrugated iron variety can still be seen.....dave souza, talk 20:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be so slow in responding, Dave. It's just that I feel rather discouraged about the matter. While changing the tone of the "tone" tag may help a little, it's not really attacking the underlying problem of lack of respect for those who actually know what they're talking about and the touchiness of those who feel that their professional status is under attack. The trouble is that I don't really have anything better to suggest. The Wikipedia model has worked pretty well to get us volume but we've reached the point where the big gaps have all been filled in now and we really need to improve on what we have rather than looking for new areas to fill with something makeshift. And that's where we need specialists who know how to write and non-specialists who are prepared to copyedit without changing the content. There's less of a place for the enthusiastic generalist than there was in the early days of Wikipedia and people are finding that hard to accept. One of the reasons why I don't add nearly as much content as I used to.

My apologies for being a bit slow in coming back on this, Derek. Sorry about the discouragement: your analysis of the problems is perceptive, and the big projects are certainly better covered now. In some ways I'm in the same boat, for example others are able to provide current scholarship on Scottish history which is a great improvement on my summaries based on second hand books. However despite there apparently being a million and a half articles on this Wikpedia alone, there seems to be an infinite amount to improve or add: maybe someday doocots to give detailed coverage to Scotland's heritage! Also, it's easy to get bogged down in troubleshooting rather than getting into new content or, more sensibly perhaps, taking a Wikibreak. Thanks for the help, ..dave souza, talk 10:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doocots

Anyway, doocots. I don't know of any in Calgary. In fact there aren't even very many pigeons. However when I lived in Arbroath, one of my neighbours on Carnegie Street, a very pleasant man and a real character, used to keep them. His doocot was in his back garden. Sadly I don't have an anecdote about it. However I hope that you manage to photograph a Glaswegian doocot to balance the rather imposing aristocratic doocots pictured in the article with a bit of 20th century realism. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You piqued my curiosity about Calgary doocots though and I found this interesting link complete with suburban doocot photo. Airdrie is a town of about 30,000 just north of Calgary, by the way. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice link! I'm now waiting for some rather gloomy weather to pass before checking out a possible location of surviving "dookits" in Greenock.... ..dave souza, talk 10:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert

I'm just wondering why you reverted a category change to your user page. Per this CfD, Category:UK Wikipedians was moved to Category:British Wikipedians. Thanks, — FireFox ^(talk) _{09:57, 04 September 2006}

I reverted it because I considered it rather rude to change my user page without asking first. Particularly when you used a bot to do it. If you or your bot had left a request on my talk page, I would have carried out the change myself. However since the category is now useless I have removed the link to it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland

Following a successful period of consultation WikiProject Scotland has now been launched. As a participant in the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board I wonder if you may be interested in this new endeavour too? If so, please sign-up here. The WikiProject will be replacing some of the functions of the notice board, especially those in the lower half.

While I am here, please also have a look at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland and give it a "Watch". It was started up by User:Visviva a few days ago, after long being mooted at the notice board, and effectively replaces all the AfD listings at the notice board. Being a transclusion of all the on-going discussions it is a much more useful tool.

Even if you do not want to spend too much time on the WikiProject, please give it a "Watch" and feel free to contribute to Talk page discussions: the more contributors the merrier.

All the best. --Mais oui! 10:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review/look over...

...edits I have made adding information to Elizabeth Magie, Charles Darrow and History of the board game Monopoly. I know these are things you've contributed to as well, and I'd just like someone else to check them over for accuracy, making sure I didn't introduce any new typographical errors and so on. Thanks!

My pleasure, John ! -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. I will have to take your word for it on some of the facts as I don't have an independent reference but it looks pretty good. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently acquired used copies of all of the latest books I'm including references from. The Magie/Darrow stuff covers the entire Monopoly section in The Playmakers and I'm seriously considering getting a copy of Anspach's book, though I know it will be HEAVY on his POV. Thanks as always for your comments. (And I've since done a little more fiddling with The Landlord's Game as well, for accuracy, but I'm finished for the night if you want to take a last look at my edits - never hurts to have someone else looking for typos, style errors, etc.) --JohnDBuell 02:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You lucky guy! Well, thanks for passing the info on, by writing it up in Wikipedia. We are all in your debt. You're probably right about Anspach's book being a bit opinionated, if his website is anything to go by, but credit where credit is due. He did a lot of good work uncovering the history and finding actual witnesses so his book may well be worth getting. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do some shopping around or see if any of my local libraries have the Anspach book. But what's really interesting is that Hasbro let Phil Orbanes do a 2nd edition of his Monopoly Companion that included a bit of the history that Anspach helped to rediscover, and Kennedy's book, also endorsed by Hasbro, talks about the same history, but Alan Axelrod's book mentions no one but Darrow by name, as does the Monopoly website, and Orbanes's new book on the complete history of the game, coming out this fall, is NOT endorsed by Hasbro. Sounds like they're going back to the old "folk tale" to me, and I think even Anspach has said so.

I've traded e-mail messages back and forth with Orbanes and he's been VERY supportive of what we've been doing, especially as we're making sure that all the proper writers and researchers get the proper credit. He also told me that he's used Wikipedia several times in some of his research! --JohnDBuell 03:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageous POV

How can you say the traditional version by The Corries is a "better reference" for Jacobitism than the folk-rock version by Steeleye Span? ;) It was actually a citation as I'd transcribed the words from that record and don't have the Corries version: will just take your word for it that they're the same. Still think Steeleye Span's is really good, but sure won't edit war over this! ...dave souza, talk 09:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What ? Swords at dawn! Naa. Seriously, I've got both versions and they are both enjoyable. The words are the same. In fact I'm not sure why I bothered to change it really. I suppose that it's just that the Corries' instrumental treatment is a bit more "folky" and a bit less "rocky". Not something that shows up too well in a textual reference. What was I thinking ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey sorry, I was just kidding: the Corries sort of sounds more authoritative! As long as they both have the "goosie" reference either will do fine. Mainly added it in the first place because for years I couldn't quite understand what they were singing about, then when reading up on the Jacobites all became clear. Anyway, will leave it to your best judgement as to which is a better one to cite. Have a wee photo taken in a blink of sunshine yesterday between showers before today's really rotten weather: Jim puzzling over his notes, presumably checking quantities. ..dave souza, talk 18:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rest, labour, sainthood...

No rest for the wicked! --Mais oui! 06:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do appear to be the persona non grata du jour, so I may as well resign myself to my fate. Comfy bed sounds great: I do actually have a good read on the go, amazing as that may sound, considering the amount of time I spend/waste on here. Sleep tight. --Mais oui! 06:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Predominately / predominantly

(Re: [6]) If you want to correct my spelling, please try to be completely sure it's a mistake. Predominately is a perfectly good adverb whose usage predates predominantly and is legitimately formed from the (now uncommon) adjective predominate. -- Schaefer (Talk) 00:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. You're right. It was thoughtless of me. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposals in re kilt article

I just now found your comment on the Irish kilt merge proposal. I have offered a counter-proposal on the discussion page of the main kilt article. Would you please take a look at it and let me know your thoughts. I hope it doesn't sound too complex because it really isn't, though I fear my explanation might be.

I'm not too invested in the organization of the articles just so long as the special characteristics of the Scottish kilt (and other types, for that matter) can be discussed without confusion. JFPerry 02:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JFP. yes I did comment. And I've already read your proposal which looks quite reasonable. The thing is that I don't really think that there is much more to be said about Irish kilts than there is about hen's teeth. It seems to me that they are basically a product of the nineteenth century fascination with tartan. The writer of this website seems to agree. Thus I am of the opinion that there is too little to be said about them to justify a separate standalone article. The only justification I can see would be an article about the history of the Irish kilt concept and its modern existence -- in the same way as it is possible to write an article about the concept of Atlantis even though Atlantis itself has never existed. However I may well be wrong. It's happened before, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right about the Irish kilt. I just plain don't know enough about it, but maybe that is because, after all is said and done, there just isn't much to know about it. As I say above, my main concern is not with the organization of the articles, but with the discussion of the Scottish kilt. That discussion should not be eviscerated. Who is planning to do the re-writing necessary for the mergers? And where would the proposed mergers leave the kilt variants page? Would the proposed new kilt article discuss something like the school uniform skirt which is commonly enough (some would say mistakenly) referred to as a kilt? Someone needs to move on this, one way or another. Are you going to do it? JFPerry 14:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We both seem to be agreed that there is little to say about the Irish kilt (and even less about the Welsh kilt). That is the basic reason why I think that the misleading articles on them which currently exist should go, whether by merger or by outright deletion. I am not planning to rewrite anything as I am very happy with the work which you have already put into this In fact I would be loath to disturb your work as I am not expert enough to achieve the same quality of article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave a note on the talk pages of the two folks who suggested the merges and see what they want to do. JFPerry 16:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Luminiferous" aether too limiting?

Hi, ~could you comment on Talk:Luminiferous_aether#.22Luminiferous.22_aether_too_limiting.3F? Harald88 20:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monifieth

Hi, again Derek! How pronounce the second letter "O" in Monifieth. Like "OW" in Glasgow, or "O" in Forfar? (Прон, en:Pron)

Hi, Прон. It's like the "O" in Forfar. Also note that the "ie" is pronounced like "ee", the "th" is unvoiced and the stress is on the last syllable so the pronunciation is like moniFEETH. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I know for "FEETH". Cheers (Прон)

Yogurt/Yoghurt

This notice is to inform you that there is a new discussion open on the Yogurt/Yoghurt debate. Please visit Talk:Yogurt#Requested move revisited and consider participating. Thank you. —Mets501 (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a recording

I would like to place a request for a recording of the Ohio Wesleyan University page. Who can I turn to? Thank you! WikiprojectOWU 03:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W. S. Gilbert FA candidate

Dear WP:G&S participant: The W. S. Gilbert article has received a lot of work in the past month and it has been nominated as a Featured Article. Please review it and then weigh in on the nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. S. Gilbert if you have a chance. Regards, -- Ssilvers 02:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill of Rights 1689 - ????

Do you think the article on the bill of rights should be using the past tense in its first sentence? Alec - U.K. 15:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it still exists and is enforced (in England) so the present tense seems more reasonable. After all we would use the present tense in a sentence like "The Bank of Scotland is a bank created by the Scottish Parliament in 1695" and the Bill of Rights is only six years older than the Bank. But it is a pretty trivial change. I'm sure that there are more useful things to do (like fixing mis-spellings). -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty-first century issues & international impacts (Scottish History)

Hi, Derek

You seem to be someone who cares about the History of Scotland article.

I recently returned from a trip through the UK (north & south) during which I spent a couple weeks driving around Scotland. About a week of my time was spent in the east (north and east of Inverness), and the other portion was up into the Orkneys, over along the north to the northwest, then southward and back through some national parkland to Loch Ness & Inverness.

One thing that is clear is that the international depletion of the large-fish sea fisheries has very badly impacted the coastal economy. It's been the plunder of the ocean fisheries by huge, technologically effective ships that has been the culprit. This is not yet brought out in the current 21st Century section of the current article. I believe it should be, but I'm too much of a neophyte to the subject (H-of-Sc) — and too much a North American — to even attempt an initial introduction of the subject into the H-of-Sc article.

Obviously, as with any place, a good deal of what makes up Scotland's history is economics — and the impacts are no longer from Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, Scots or any sort of people from within the British Isles.

Think you could take this on? Just thought I'd ask. Joel Russ 20:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joel, You're absolutely right. It is a big thing. The trouble is that it's also pretty political and current. I'm a great believer in the place of economic change in history, so I've no problems with adding it myself but I realise that it will need some discussion with those who think of history as events involving battles that happened last century or earlier. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the laugh

here. Too funny, thanks much. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And there was me thinking I was making a serious point! Oh well, glad you liked it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you did make a serious point, but you made it in a very witty fashion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W. S. Gilbert

Hi there! Just wanted to thank you for those typo fixes to W. S. Gilbert - always a few that slip by, no? Are you doing any work in the project at the moment? It's getting rather large just now - I'm over on Charity (play) mostly of late - so I don't see everyone all the time anymore. Anyway, cheers! Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If I remember rightly, you're more of a Sullivanite than a Gilbertarian? I could use a little help on Gilbert and Sullivan and Arthur Sullivan, because I'm stronger on Gilbert, whilst still enjoying Sullivan. If I do it alone, particularly the first one is likely to end up a little too strongly Gilbert, not enough Sullivan. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support

Thank you for your kind words of support on the Talk:Canada#What is "Canadian" page. Hu 07:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Thank you for making the case for British multiculturalism, so eloquently. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

de.wikipedia

Hi, I just saw your Account on de.wikipedia.org, right, your german is almost as good as my english ;-) I would suggest

Ich spreche leider nur wenig Deutsch, um mit mir in Kontakt zu treten benutze bitte meine Diskussionsseite in der englischen Wikipedia.

--84.56.9.52 04:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (de:Benutzer:Anja.M)[reply]

<grin>, Hey I wasn't joking! Damn you, Google! I thought you knew what you were talking about when said you could translate English to German!

Thanks for the New Improved Translation though, Anja. Mind you, people are less likely to believe what it says when it's so good. But I'll take the risk. Thanks again. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Wikipedia meetup

Frymaster has been talking to me about putting together another Calgary Wikipedia meetup. Unfortunately, our discussion got sidetracked so the date we had agreed to didn't get posted promptly. Anyway, we're still going ahead with it—so if you can accept short notice you may want to attend:

Sunday, December 17, 2006, 3:00pm, at Haymarket Café (1101 Macleod Trail SE). That's on the SW corner of Macleod Trail at 11 Avenue SE—just up from City Hall.

Thanks. —GrantNeufeld 20:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to, Grant. Unfortunately I have to pick my wife up from the Glasgow flight at the airport about then. So I won't be able to make it. Keep me posted about any more meetups though. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Ruthven

I see you added the Ruthven (family) article to the Scottish clan list. Thats all very well but I actually wrote a Clan Ruthven article a while back which someone has deleted. mjgm84 13:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that, Mjgm. The thing is that, after discussion, other Wikipedians (not me) decided to delete the Clan Ruthven article which duplicated the Ruthven (family) article. This is quite a normal way to deal with duplicate Wikipedia articles. I agree that it is rather hard if the article that you spent your time and effort on is the one that gets deleted but that's life I'm sorry to say. However I do sympathise with you. It is annoying. It's happened to me quite few times over the last few years editing Wikipedia and now, unfortunately, it's happened to you.

Since they did delete the Clan Ruthven article it seemed better to have a link to the Ruthven (family) article than to have a red link. Thus I added it to the list. The Ruthven (family) article does seem to have most of the information in the Clan Ruthven article though. Perhaps you could add any missing info to Ruthven (family) as well. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Key Extracts

I have created a draft of ‘Key Extracts from the Talk: Scotland Archives’ here. My intention is to create something that could be used as a handy guide for new contributors to the Scotland article, which after appropriate discussion would be moved to a new page and referenced on the Talk:Scotland page in due course. I’d value your comments. Please feel free to direct other Scottish Wikipedians to it. Cc Users Mais Oui!, Calgacus, Globaltraveller, Angus Maclennan, Billreid, Canæn. A Merry Xmas to all. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I'll check it out. Oh, and a Happy New Year to you too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]